CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 septembre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law September 1997 Garyfallou Aebe v. Greece - 18996/91 Judgment 24.9.1997 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Reasonable time Length of proceedings before administrative courts: Article 6 § 1 applicable; violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Government’s submission that the applicant company’s fresh complaint about the length of the proceedings constituted an unacceptable mutatio litis: Government had sufficient opportunity to make any relevant submissions before the Commission, of which they in fact availed themselves – no reason for Court to depart from principle that the compass of the case before it is delimited by the Commission’s decision on admissibility. Allegation that new complaint was time-barred only applies if the two identifiable sets of proceedings are treated separately. Conclusion : preliminary objection joined to the merits (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Fine imposed on applicant company not characterised under domestic law as a criminal sanction – sanction to which the applicant company and its representatives were liable sufficiently severe to warrant considering charge against them to be a criminal one – not necessary to analyse the nature of the offence at issue. Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance Principles emerging from Court’s case-law recalled. From introduction of first set of proceedings, the applicant company constantly sought to obtain judicial examination of the lawfulness of the ministerial order – this fact alone sufficient to warrant the examination of both sets of proceedings as a whole – issues of domestic law irrelevant to this end – States have the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way as to meet each of the requirements of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : violation; preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION No damage established – applicant company’s claims in respect of costs and expenses reasonable. Conclusion : respondent State to pay the applicant company specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes